***  WORLD NEWS  ***

&

OUR GUIDE'S BOOKS 

SCROLL DOWN FOR WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

Adrian's writing is found on the book shelves of some discerning people on both sides of the Atlantic.

 Both Dick Nesbitt-Dufort and Adrian Hill are published authors. Dick's father wrote a book about his experiences as a special operations pilot flying agents into Occupied France. Dick has edited and produced the memoirs of a soldier during the Napoleonic Wars. Adrian has written novels about espionage set in South Korea and Switzerland and remains the only British diplomat to have written part of the history of the US Department of State. When not organising sky tours he's working on a novel set during the height of the Vietnam War.

These books are on sale through Parapress based in Tunbridge Wells.

Parapress

For those interested in the Vietnam War copies of  'Escape with Honor' written together by Ambassador Francis ' Terry ' McNamara and Adrian may be found via this link to the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training in Washington DC.

***

When Adrian Hill served as a diplomat one of his most rewarding jobs was Director of British Information Services across Canada. At one stage he gave Britain's messages across the United States as well. Apart from network and local television and radio broadcasts a key part of his job was to brief and often write editorials for the hundreds of newspapers across North America, concentrating on foreign news. Most newspapers in North America view the World from a continent which could get along comfortably without anyone else - and the US/Canadian border is a surprising obstacle. Henry Ginsberg of the New York Times once challenged Adrian to find any Canadian news in his own paper. At that time Henry was their correspondent in Ottawa - he returned to New York City as the Foreign Editor and the Canadians featured more often!

Adrian's editorial contributions with a British slant proved highly popular right across North America so alongside these touring and history pages we opened this editorial page. Here we try to bring some historical perspective to the latest political and military events around the World. Military experience as a paratrooper came in handy as a diplomat. Adrian knows Afghanistan, Pakistan and India from his very first overseas posting as a diplomat serving at the British Deputy High Commission in Lahore and subsequent return visits. His career took in Cyprus and the Near East, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and Jamaica and most places along the flight path.

This news page has a complimentary purpose. Although this website is about our tours we also try to promote the heritage of the Atlantic Charter and the Special Relationship. The United Nations and NATO owe their existence to the Atlantic Charter, unique among treaties in that there were no signatures, just messages to their respective cabinets from Churchill and Roosevelt on board a battleship and a cruiser anchored off Newfoundland - plus mutual trust at a time of great danger for the democracies.

Updates will occur when the news makes one worthwhile. Articles on British defence matters are very much works in progress and frequently edited, improved, modified to reflect new conversations and fresh information. All views expressed are personal reflections based on talking to people involved in events and over thirty years military and diplomatic service in the world's hot spots including three wars.

Adrian Hill

************

WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

THE FALKLANDS, GORDON BROWN, TONY BLAIR AND THE IRAQ INQUIRY

*

VIVA ARGENTINA....AND GOOD OLD SANTAYANA

THE LATEST ROW IN A NUTSHELL

The Argentines have struck again to save the Royal Navy from the House of Commons. Their timing is almost better than in 1982. This time they're pre-empting the election of another Conservative government armed with plans to slash the Royal Navy regardless of the consequences. Under the present Labour government the Royal Navy has halved in size; the RAF suffered worse. Our stretched Army fights in Afghanistan on behalf of the civilised nations  - including Argentina - but given the latter nation's weakness for roulette, history follows Santayana's wise words, ' Those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it.'

Piqued that oil exploration goes ahead around the Falkland Islands - surely our businessmen would reach a mutually beneficial deal - Argentina seized a ship loaded with pipes that stopped in Buenos Aires. This followed by the announcement of a shipping blockade. Argentina also sent jet fighters to shadow an oil rig chugging towards the islands. Remember those scrap merchants on South Georgia.

Brink-woman-ship by their lady president may prove costly all round with a lot of broken china before we're through the diplomatic and military crises. Gordon Brown faces an election within a few weeks. Defence, rather the lack of adequate defence forces, no longer is on the back-burner. The generals are running a campaign against their sister services claiming that war between states is no threat and for years. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force say this is short-sighted nonsense - I agree, given that we're involved in a war between states. The Foreign Secretary claims a close relationship with Secretary Clinton while the White House doesn't acknowledge any relationship with Gordon Brown. During a visit to Argentina, Secretary Clinton appeared to adopt a partisan line backing Senora Kirchner, offering to help ' talks ' and causing 10 Downing Street to politely decline American diplomatic involvement. British soldiers are fighting alongside the US Marines in a critical offensive in Afghanistan. Did anyone in Washington give the Argentines a green light for this rash move against America's staunchest ally? As the down-to-earth Canadians say, ' someone speaketh with forked tongue', and possibly somewhere in Washington DC. This is white hot politics. An ideal platform for grandstanding politicians desperate to look tough, one before an election.

After the Falklands War in 1982 both countries made a determined effort to resume normal relations. President Menem was invited to London and dined with the Queen. While the President maintained his country's claim to the islands a talking shop was set up to involve Argentina in oil and gas exploration. Passenger flights and cruise ship voyages resumed between Argentina and the Falklands. Argentine families made pilgrimages to their loved ones' graves on the islands. Britain's position remained that only the islanders could decide whether they wished to remain British or become Argentines. This worked until Nestor Kirchner won the elections in Argentina partly on a platform to ' recover ' the islands, despite accusations of vote buying. Nestor Kirchner raised the question of sovereignty at the UN. Senora Kirchner was voted President in 2007 when her husband stood down as required by the Constitution. She withdrew from the oil talks. Senor Kirchner is expected stand again in October 2011 when his wife's term ends.

On the assumption that Argentina would not risk another war, Britain keeps a destroyer on patrol and 1000 military personnel on the islands. Air defence is provided by a flight of the latest Typhoon fighters. Argentina's blockade plan will have rung alarm bells throughout Whitehall. Their navy has a dozen modern destroyers and frigates plus two submarines that could indeed blockade the islands although for how long is another matter. Argentina's air force has about forty jet fighters. Argentine's navy did not attempt to intercept the oil rig heading for the islands. A small frigate did sneak into Falklands' waters - more below - but, at this stage, probably the Argentines would not risk an attempt to prevent oil exploration by some form of low level military action such as sabotage.

Senora Kirchner won't mess with these ladies

The new aircraft carriers will be the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy weighing in at 65,000 tons fully loaded and 930 feet long with a wide beam, much closer in size to the US Navy's strike carriers though with only 1300/1400 complement rather than nearly 5000 on a US carrier. The ships will carry an air group of at least 40 fighters and helicopters but given their size one suspects that this number could increase during an emergency. The flight deck has two islands, one for steering the ship and a second for controlling its aircraft. The ski jump bow allows its STOVL fighters to use less fuel and take off while carrying a heavy load. Close defence weapons reflect the lessons from the Falklands War. Over a lifetime of 50 years the ships may increase to 75,000 tons fully loaded as additions are made - such as armour plate on the flight deck and sides - and possibly further deck space added. France plans a single aircraft carrier along the same design though weighing 75,000 tons, presumably its armour and catapults since the ship's length and beam are the same. Although the Conservatives oppose the new carriers, preferring to spend more on overseas aid for third world dictators, there are strong arguments for building a third big aircraft carrier - see article at World News Three. 

MEGAPHONE DIPLOMACY

One hopes the Foreign Office learnt its lesson back in 1982 - so far, there's not much evidence. Rather than pussyfoot - the Argentine government has made a provocative diplomatic move, we're trying to lower the temperature by pretending nothing happened - group think might conclude that a very bright red light flashes. Given that the oil-rig had been tugged south for weeks, that red light flashed since last autumn. Plenty of time for discreet precautions. Senora Kirchner's government is in trouble, spending 30% more on social programmes - buying the next election for her husband - while revenue rises at 12% only. She is engaged in a battle with Congress over who controls the national bank and foreign exchange reserves. She sacked the head of the National Bank and Congress restored him to the post. Since Argentina defaulted on huge sovereign debts it has not been able to borrow from institutions though must repay $ 13 billions this year. British banks handed over a lot of money to Argentina and the government - ours - should not expect UK taxpayers to bail them out.

All that won't stop Senora Kirchner seeking ways to harass the Falkland islanders' new oil exploration industry. She's already trying to auction the same exploration blocks to international bidders including the Chinese. If she takes money off the Chinese, and they're rash enough to pay, that risks confrontation between Britain and China. She's stuck out her neck, at the UN and in Washington, and after embroiling Hillary Clinton pressure for action will grow. If it's all words, Senora Kirchner will look silly. We don't want to make her a national heroine but discreet moves are required. Talks are not going to solve anything with Senora Kirchner - Argentina's oil companies know they're welcome to drill around the Falklands. The opposition and business are open to working with other countries and multi-nationals. Were both Kirchners less hostile to private business, international oil companies already would explore promising off-shore geology below shallower waters much closer to land along the Argentine coast. Senora Kirchner is not going away - not this side of Argentina's presidential election in October 2011 when her husband may return to the Presidential Palace. Cristina Kirchner thinks she's a second Evita.   

Britain's politicians and media are obsessed with Afghanistan. I would have thought that a potential 60 billion barrels of oil and probable gas reserves are somewhat more valuable to this country than anything in Afghanistan. Investors need confidence and that's what Senora Kirchner hopes to undermine. We should not underestimate Argentina's skills at UN diplomacy where knee-jerk resolutions are the daily fare. Already we see Argentina's diplomats rouse support from the usual chorus with a solo from Hillary Clinton. Two observations at this point - Commonwealth countries that offer Argentina political support do not need UK overseas aid. We should shut off the money tap. Second, the British government claims that it wants the oil and gas developed - then, logically, Britain must protect the islands and their surrounding waters, properly, and for a long time. Argentina's claims to vast expanses of ocean are ridiculous. That won't bother the UN, nor oil-hungry China. It should bother the Department of State. Russia claims most of the Artic seabed with similar nationalist clamour.

HMS Richmond, Type 23 Destroyer, firing a Harpoon missile.

Three Type 23s were sold to Chile, all three ships only six years old. These ships should patrol Falklands waters today flying white ensigns. Their design incorporates all the lessons from the 1982 South Atlantic War. Harpoon missiles possess three times the range of the Exocets carried by Argentina's destroyers.

GAMBIT OR GAMBLE

Former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, told me that during the late 1970s when Argentina threatened the Falklands he was offered two naval options - send surface ships rather publicly or send nuclear submarines discreetly. With a canny smile, he added,' I sent both.' 

On the 28 January the Argentine small frigate, Drummond, wandered into Falklands' waters until discovered by HMS York. She left after a friendly exchange but had used French vessels as cover. Most likely this probe tested our ability to patrol oil rigs. Argentina will play tricks. We must show that we can find and intercept raiding parties because they won't escape across 300 miles of open sea. The depleted Royal Navy still has enough immediately available strength to alter the balance of naval and air power in the region. The RAF has a modern airfield at Mount Pleasant able to handle plenty of modern fighters. A battalion and strong anti-aircraft firepower should be ready to reinforce the garrison defending the airhead and Port Stanley. I suspect low level harassment is the plan, boarding and arresting ships on their way south; none-the-less, policing against such tactics consumes much time and resources. Despatching significant reinforcements at this early stage would make Argentina's business leaders rather more keen that Senora Kirchner's threatened blockade does not turn into a shooting war. Another military disaster would do horrendous damage to a shaky and heavily indebted Argentine economy.

 Venezuela's threatens to fight alongside Argentina. Both presidents need a clear warning light from the British. So does the Department of State. One level of response none of them could fail to grasp is at least a full squadron of Typhoons on their way to the Falkland Islands. According to the media the Ministry of Defence has sent a nuclear submarine to patrol the waters around the islands. This deployment - MOD rarely confirms submarine deployments - flashes a red light at Argentina's admirals contemplating any blockade while reminding international oil companies who licenses exploration in Falklands waters. HMS York would feel less lonely if she were joined by a couple more - see photo above - surface ships. This squall offers a good moment to discover how quickly the present ' low operational state ' HMS Invincible becomes ready for combat duties. Meanwhile our ' duty ' aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean plus support ships ought to be alerted for despatch south.

Washington should cease diplomatic flattery and tell Senora Kirchner that regardless of her claims the Western democracies do not need Argentina's tantrums distracting from a global fight against people who loathe all democracies. London offered and sent immediate help to Chile after the earthquake. Argentina's diplomats should sit down with ours and find a way where the oil exploration goes ahead and both countries benefit. Hillary Clinton's rash words have made this welcome development far more difficult. Argentina cannot talk unless sovereignty is on the table - while Britain respects the islanders' wishes, thus remains ready to discuss anything save sovereignty. Common sense argues, if there is more oil and gas around the Falklands than Scotland, the nearest potential consumers are their Latin American neighbours. There is probably much more oil and gas just off the Argentine coast. However, investors are more likely put money into a Falklands oil and gas industry than one run by Senora Kirchner's Argentina where profitable companies operate with the threat of nationalisation.

Fortunately, this foolish decision by Senora Kirchner greatly strengthens the hand of the Labour and Conservative defence teams, both strong on naval matters. The Royal Navy contributes a great deal of its air and commando resources to the campaign in Afghanistan. This latest incident makes the obvious case for a balanced fleet with aircraft carriers, plenty of surface ships and submarines plus all that goes with them, indeed a larger fleet than the one promised in the 1998 strategic defence review. We are on the threshold of an era when nations compete for energy and raw materials. Argentina offers a timely warning. The tough choice on exploring for oil around the Falklands was to go ahead, yet keep the door open for commercial deals. The government got that one right though ignored the money for naval and air power to back up the islanders. Falklands oil and gas will help the islanders and possibly Britain's recovery. The tough choice over defence for the next British government is not where to slash but gathering enough courage to increase the annual defence budget, not simply to win a colonial war in Asia, but deter many other political and military gamblers.

*

' Double the effort and square the error.'

Sir Robert Thompson describing the worst form of strategy - debating with Adrian over a Chinese meal in wartime Saigon.

THE PRESIDENT'S DILEMMA

When asked if they supported Argentina or Britain in the latest Falklands dispute at first the Department of State answered that they did not take sides in territorial disputes. This simply doesn't wash because the United States has been taking sides in a territorial row on behalf of Israel since 1948. Another dispute is brewing in the Arctic Ocean with Russia - also over oil and gas reserves - and I can't believe the State Department won't seek diplomatic backing from Canada, Denmark and Norway. Since peddling that line Secretary Hillary Clinton has visited Senora Kirchner in Argentina and adopted an openly partisan stance on behalf of Argentina. One accepts that she was badly advised but the damage is done. The alliance weakened. She's turned the clock back nearly 30 years to the late Al' Haig and Mrs Kirkpatrick doing their best to stab their British ally in the back. Only this time there is no Ronald Reagan nor Kasper Weinberger to fight our corner in Washington. Ronald Reagan's wise decisions to sack 'Al Haig and Mrs Fitzpatrick forged the alliance between himself and Margaret Thatcher that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire and freedom for millions of Eastern Europeans.

So far it's been a war of words - and polite diplomacy may cool Senora's Kirchner's high heels. What if it does not? Argentina - encouraged by Venezuela - may attempt to disrupt the oil exploration. Venezuela has been caught assisting terrorists in Spain and France. What line will come out of the State Department in that situation? Expect more pussy-footing. America's diplomats - Latin America specialists - smartly sought ' talks ' from their British allies to curry favour from their hostile southern neighbours. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, delivered the message in Buenos Aires - stressing that the UK should talk rather than urging both parties to resolve the oil dispute peacefully.

Hillary Clinton's sudden conversion by the Latin American experts in the Department of State proves the down-side of the American system where inexperienced political appointees are guided by area experts - tunnel vision. American diplomats tend to spend their entire careers in a particular region while loyal activists of the governing party are rewarded with appointments as ambassadors or as officials in Washington. Secretary Clinton adopted a line which the Spanish Presidency of the EC wisely avoided. Her visit was intended as damage control, shoring up relations with Argentina and Brazil in particular. America wants their votes at the UN over sanctions against Iran.

She opened Pandora's box. The price of the State Department's clumsy appeasement of Senora Kirchner could prove steep. British voters reluctantly supported American policy in the Middle East and South-West Asia despite harbouring grave doubts. One million people demonstrated in London against invading Iraq - months before the border was crossed by American and British forces. British voters will interpret this latest American intervention over the Falkland Islands as hostile. Next time, Madame Secretary, please phone London and consult your friend, David Miliband. 

The President has a lot on his plate - the economy's and the nation's health are closely linked - and he may have to push through the health insurance bill against strong opposition from the Republicans and the health insurance business. Squabbles in the South Atlantic are an unwelcome nuisance. The President, not unreasonably, would expect the British to sort out the problem themselves and leave the Americans in peace. The Brits happily would, Senora Kirchner will not.

At present the White House can brush aside a hostile press in Britain. Closer targets are on offer. The Conservative Party is funded by a tax-avoider resident in Belize. The British public do not ( regardless of whatever Foreign Office ministers claim ) meekly accept that Commonwealth countries such as Belize - over many years glad to have our troops and jet fighters to protect them from Guatemala - should now support Argentina trying to do exactly the same to the Falkland Islanders. Why should taxpayers shower money on these these ungrateful spongers.

Don't count on this situation lasting forever. Sooner rather than later the squabble will land on the President's desk.

SOME REALITY CHECKS

Senora Kirchner - according to high society in her own country known as the Botox Evita - simply has not registered that no British Prime Minister would last five minutes if he or she handed over the Falkland Islanders to Argentina. Nor it seems has the State Department. The White House needs to understand British political reality. What might have been possible - though against the instincts of the voting public - before the Argentine invasion and nightly television pictures of the mess left behind by their starving and defeated army, no longer is an option, whoever lives in 10 Downing Street.

There is nothing complicated about international law regarding the Falklands. The UN Charter upholds the right of self-determination for all people. Roosevelt and Churchill drew up the Atlantic Charter at their first meeting - see the Special Relationship below - during World War Two and this charter became the parent of the UN. In fact the Atlantic Charter is a sounder plan than the UN Charter. The UN fought the Korean War to uphold this principle and the UN Commander in Korea is an American general to this day. There may be only 3000 people on the islands but they have as much right to be British as the people of Hawai have to be American. If we redrew the political map back to 1833 a lot of countries would disappear including much of Argentina. Israel would return to the Turkish Empire and the Balkans although Greece escapes by four years, Poland to Russia and Germany, one quarter of the Globe to Britain. The southern parts of the USA would return to Mexico - California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas the lone star state. That would be fine for some in these times of resource wars save that since 1945 we respect the UN Charter and the right of all peoples to decide their own fates. 

During spring 1982 the Canadians offered every kind of support. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau regarded the Argentine invasion as a flagrant violation of international law. And Pierre Trudeau was a rare Global leader who set the tone for millions in places far away from Canada.

Given the choice between defending the human rights of the Falkland Islanders - our own flesh and blood - and supporting the American led NATO campaign in Afghanistan, the islanders win the British public's heart every time. The President's dilemma is that thanks to the previous Administration, and now Secretary Clinton, the British people regard these highly unpopular campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as one-sided deals. The troops and their officers do not share that opinion but the voting public are convinced that our forces are taken for granted. Furthermore, the Iraq Inquiry reveals how both Prime Ministers, Blair and Brown, had no influence over important strategic decisions. Brown will appear before the Inquiry later this week and the session may cost him many votes.

London now does business with a President whose staff make a point of distancing themselves from the British and the Prime Minister in particular. Not exactly smart diplomacy from a White House staff, one assumes, the President consults. America cannot have it both ways. Nor can British politicians. Military imbalance and grudging commitment have done the alliance much harm. Holland's government has collapsed over troop deployments. Australia's and Canada's will not risk the same fate. This is bad news for all democracies including Argentina. The EC and Latin American chatter clubs are no substitute for the weathered Anglo-American alliance.

Gordon Brown as Chancellor and more recently, Prime Minister, clearly deserves blame for the lack of ships, aircraft and men in our armed forces. Moreover, he is squarely to blame for the government failing to stick out the Iraq mission and then not backing the Afghan mission properly. Brown's lack of support for our forces drew American fire-brigades into Basra and lately Helmand. None-the-less, only the President can decide whether sitting on the fence so as not to make waves around Latin America - where the USA is now excluded from regional summits - makes any sense given that it could cost him the most loyal ally in Afghanistan.

RIPPLES SPREAD

Make no mistake, British voters despise their politicians and this spring, they intend a hung Parliament. That means a significant number, effectively, may tell their politicians our forces should come out of Afghanistan. This slow fuse would leave the President looking for many more than 11,000 British troops because it would trigger a steady exodus of all the NATO contingents. Many people in this country will vote for fringe parties that claim they would restore our navy and air force to deal with direct threats to British soil and trade anywhere in the World. One fringe party would solve the international terrorist problem on the front door step by sending all the Muslims back to their original countries. Fringe parties reflect widespread anger and frustration with the three main parties and can upset apple carts; last time they won nearly 10% of the vote if not seats in Parliament.

British voters are waking up, and somewhat late in the day, slowly realising they are ludicrously dependent on the United States for intelligence and defence. The government has reduced our armed forces to making themselves useful for American foreign policy. This is absurd and bad for both countries. America looks after itself - and quite right. Likewise, if British voters want real security, they must pay the full insurance premium.

This means pursuing a foreign policy based on independent intelligence and strong armed forces. British voters still find this hard to swallow. Most cannot remember when invasion threatened and we nearly starved because we had spent most of a decade disarming while Hitler did the opposite. Today, always ready to blame anyone but themselves, prompted by their media, British voters grumble that the special relationship is for the birds. They are wrong.

Though the money spent on the war in Afghanistan each year would buy a super aircraft carrier. The money spent over the last five years would build three super carriers and a further six Daring class destroyers. Add up the cost of the war in Iraq and it's not hard to see why the defence equipment budget is £ 35 billions short for the programmes. The media finally stumble on this arithmetic. Gordon Brown paid for the war by cutting the armed forces budgets. At this stage Britain's voters are in denial - but one day the penny will drop - because they're as much to blame as the politicians they elected several times in a row.  

 *

THE IRAQ INQUIRY

For several weeks a procession of politicians, diplomats and senior officers has been questioned by a very distinguished panel in London. The Inquiry is chaired by Sir John Chilcot, formerly Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office who has considerable experience of other recent Inquiries. Members of the Inquiry include Baroness Usha Prashar who recently was First Civil Service Commissioner and has held many other appointments such as Chairman of the Parole Board. There are two historians, Sir Martin Gilbert, biographer of Winston Churchill, and Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman author of many histories including the Falklands War. There is one former diplomat, Sir Roderick Lyne, who was Ambassador to Russia and served as a Private Secretary to Prime Minister, John Major. The hearings are streamed over the Internet. If you miss a hearing all are recorded and transcripts plus supporting documents are easily read on the Inquiry website. Already a vast amount of evidence has been gathered. Those interested in avoiding wars should study the material carefully. All I offer below are some impressions so far. 

Britain's media complain that the questioning appears deferential. They miss the point. Intellectually the questions are very tough. The Inquiry panel is asking those appearing before them - including former Prime Minister Tony Blair - questions they should have asked themselves before invading Iraq. Consequently, widespread lack of intellectual rigour among ministers, senior diplomats, officials and generals is daily exposed. Gradually the panel spotlight the simple though profound questions all these people failed to identify. Or worse, identified, but did not resolve.

NEW LABOUR

Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997. Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the Exchequer. The following year a Strategic Defence Review set out the naval, air and land strength that henceforth would concentrate on expeditionary warfare. The emphasis was on short term, medium sized interventions. Although new equipment such as aircraft carriers, fighters, transport aircraft, helicopters and armoured vehicles were promised, cuts in destroyers and submarines, aircraft and infantry were the price for the three Services to enjoy a period of comparative stability. This programme was never properly budgeted. And many difficulties that faced our sailors, soldiers and airmen in Iraq and later Afghanistan were caused through this inadequate funding. The Chancellor held the purse strings. However, we have Cabinet responsibility in Britain, and the question arises whether the Prime Minister did enough to bring this looming crisis before the whole Cabinet for resolution. The money was there but squandered on a huge pay roll vote. The overseas aid budget, removed from the diplomats, soon ballooned as a separate foreign policy detached from the national interest.

Evidence given before the Inquiry by the former Defence Minister and his Permanent Secretary and senior commanders at the time points to continual inadequate funding of the armed forces. When Gordon Brown recently appeared before the Speaker's Committee at the House of Commons, they asked him about the adequacy of defence budget - the Prime Minister claimed that it had increased. All the retired Service Chiefs maintain that Tony Blair and his Government sent this country into two major wars on a budget already insufficient for peace.

GORDON BROWN

Gordon Brown came under considerable pressure over this lack of support for the armed services when Chancellor. He had hoped to avoid giving evidence before the summer but eventually wrote to Sir John Chilcot with a request to appear before the Inquiry in advance of the General Election. He has now given evidence and I can offer a few observations. The appearance was intended as damage limitation before the election and his coach, Peter Mandelson, did a fairly respectable job. One could score as in tennis and say - Peter Mandelson 3 sets and David Cameron's PR team 2 sets. Peter Mandelson's trainee let him down only three times but these were highly significant lapses.

Gordon Brown adopted the line that ' Tony drove the car, gov, I was just supplying the petrol. Although Tony didn't run the government properly, swigging coffee with his close mates, I knew all I needed from the odd quick chat with him - and did a good job at the money pump.' This argument fell apart when Gordon Brown wanted the Inquiry to believe that as Chancellor he took only passing interest in press reports that the FCO lawyers had grave doubts whether invasion was legal. This was a man who wanted the Prime Minister's desk, not a humble book keeper. If he really did take no particular interest when the government's experts thought the war illegal, no wonder our banks ran amok.

He was not asked whether there was a deal between himself and Tony Blair over power sharing. In other words, had they settled on a deal whereby Tony Blair could strut the World stage and send our forces into war, so long as the cost did not impinge on Gordon Brown's social engineering programme at home and his missionary work abroad. I think this omission was a mistake because the answer - whatever he claimed - would have thrown light on the price paid by the taxpayers for this flawed political partnership. 

The nearest we came to this underlying discord was when Gordon Brown maintained that he had never starved the Armed Forces of cash. On the contrary, he insisted, their budget rose by 1.5% each year in real terms, but the Ministry of Defence had to obey the accounting rules. Otherwise that would have set a dangerous precedent which other ministries all over Whitehall would have followed. What exactly did he mean by real terms? High street shopping retail inflation or the steady 10% a year inflation for sophisticated warships and aircraft? Slashing the budget by shortening or delaying orders simply increased the prices of individual units. We should buy the numbers originally ordered. We were fighting two distant foreign wars yet as Chancellor he enforced the same accounting rules on the Armed Forces as he did on local government down the road dealing with drains and dustbins. Gordon Brown proudly informed the Inquiry how the war in Iraq had not effected financing the Government's other programmes. That remains the root problem.

Admirals, generals and air marshals are inevitably livid. The Conservatives snipe but refuse to pledge a single penny more and intend much less for all three services. Gordon Brown has discovered rather late in the day that the Armed Forces are popular with voters - no sooner back in the street, Gordon dashed off to Afghanistan where he promised the troops more equipment, though, surprise, surprise, half the amount requested.

What's more, they'll have to vote Labour, it's for delivery in 2011.

TONY BLAIR

A major difficulty for the Inquiry is that many papers are withheld from the public by the government although such papers are available to the Inquiry. Other papers are harder to come by. Tony Blair carried out a private correspondence with George W Bush and often these letters were sent without consulting ministers or officials. We have no public record of telephone conversations between the President and Tony Blair. A large number of people, starting with Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's Ambassador in Washington at the time, would like candour from Tony Blair over what he discussed a deux with President Bush at Crawford, Texas, during their April 2002 meeting. For some hours President Bush extracted Tony Blair from his advisers including Christopher Meyer. Bear in mind that for several months Saddam Hussein had financed the suicide bombers attacking Israel and Jordan while Fatah militants had just occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Later the same month President Bush hosted the King of Saudi Arabia at Crawford for talks. The President was clearing the decks and counting his friends before crossing the Rubicon.

Speaking for the first time before the Inquiry, Tony Blair remarked that he and the President had talked about Israel, indeed, Israelis joined their private meeting - this news surely let slip for a reason. Leaving that aside, the Israelis' presence might explain why President George W Bush wanted talks with Blair on his own. Again, we do not know what Blair had written to Bush prior to the Crawford talks. Neither America nor Britain had kept an embassy in Iraq for years and gathering reliable human intelligence was difficult. Suppose the Israelis offered to make up for the dearth of intelligence about Iraq - although there is no public evidence - moreover, along with President Bush, also promised to make the Road Map peace process work and negotiate with the Palestinians. In exchange the USA would remove Saddam Hussein and thereby stop the appalling loss of life caused by the suicide bombers. Britain came into the frame because Bush needed military allies before the invasion plan could resemble round two of his father's war - obeying the UN, Bush senior had stopped at the Iraq border - and who better than the British to co-ordinate the provision of international respectability for what, otherwise, involved a violation of the UN Charter.

Suppose Tony Blair - with no military experience whatsoever - agreed in principle to such a deal, convinced that he could simply order the FCO lawyers and diplomats to come up with solutions at the UN Security Council. Why invade Iraq? The previous winter the Taliban had been crushed in Afghanistan. There was no evidence of any link between Sadam Hussain and Bin Laden, indeed the secular Baath Party regarded Islamic extremists as dangerous. Yet removing the regime and installing a friendly democracy offered huge strategic gains. Success would drive a salient between Syria and Iran while removing an enemy of Israel. Saudi Arabia would have a large friendly neighbour instead of a dangerous regime next door. NATO friendly territory would stretch from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea thereby almost restoring the old CENTO alliance. Iraq's oil would open up for business - securing major oil reserves for investment and development. There opened a possibility that democracy might gain ground and spread into neighbouring Iran where another violent regime hostile to Israel wished to become a nuclear weapon state. All this hung on democracy taking root in Iraq.

There was also a window of opportunity. No other country could challenge the United States' conventional forces - some dreamers talked about the end of history - and this advantage made action on a whole list of international problems more than tempting to those advising the President that April. Their strategy fell apart when Donald Rumsveld and General Tommy Franks - the ' other ' General Franks ( Freddie F Franks ) is the one widely admired  - showed little interest in the police role after the defeat of Sadam's forces. No evidence has been produced of any intelligence gathering on Iran's possible reactions to the proposed invasion - the UK had an embassy in Teheran. No evidence has been given of a plan to obtain Iraq's own intelligence on Iran. There was no plan - as far as one can see - to nurse Iraq through to democracy other than relying on exiled politicians. Compounding all this failure was an enemy forces assessment that proved very wide of the mark. A year later the first American fatality after crossing the Iraq border was a young Marine lieutenant who was shot in the chest by a civilian who pulled up in a pick-up truck and opened fire with an AK 47. The Iraqi climbed back in his pick-up and vanished across the scrub before the Marine platoon reacted. This ambush was a foretaste of the coming years.

*

Rumsveld took over responsibility for Iraq's occupation from Colin Powell and the Department of State only two months before the invasion. This reflects tunnel-vision at the heart of the Administration - starting with the President, himself. My concern is the way our government behaved. Clues are scattered throughout Tony Blair's testimony and that given by other Ministers. Blair made no mention, nor did Jack Straw, of any attempt beforehand to build an alliance with Secretary of State, Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Gulf War One and a previous National Security Adviser. Under Powell's leadership the State Department had done their homework, knew the kind of quagmire that awaited US Forces after Sadam's regime collapsed. Powell needed vocal allies to insist on proper planning. The strategic goal depended on coping with the aftermath of invasion, improving daily life, nurturing democracy. Clare Short was his British contact on reconstruction but she was excluded from Tony Blair's inner circle. Tony Blair and Jack Straw failed to step up to the challenge and support Powell. The Foreign Secretary spared time to read up about the Suez Crisis in 1956 when Anthony Eden engaged in collusion with Israel. He did not fight Powell's corner. Listening to Blair's testimony before the Inquiry, it became clear that he had never understood the gravity of invading another country, removing its government, and occupying. The Labour Party has some very sound people amongst its old guard. None appear to have been consulted. One of whom, I'm confident, would have reminded Blair of our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention, never mind the UN Charter. Generals appearing before the Inquiry have admitted that their ambition was for the British zone to provide a model for the occupation phase. Tony Blair failed to provide himself with the means to achieve this ambition. For a start managing the aid budget had been removed from the Foreign Secretary. This error limited his options. A minister should have gone to Iraq on the heels of the Army and stayed involved as the Prime Minister's personal representative - following the pattern set by Winston Churchill. The obvious candidate was Clare Short, who had a huge budget, who may have proved difficult but had earned a reputation for seeing jobs through. Clare Short sorted out Militant before the 1996 Party Conference. She was loyal and a fighter.

By his own admission Tony Blair had little idea about the full implications of the duties of an occupying power. He was the only person with the authority and leverage on the mission to make Donald Rumsveld, US Defense Secretary, go back to the drawing board on the force levels required by an occupying power. Rumsveld jeered that the US could go it alone. Britain should have called his bluff, Rumsveld would have backed down. One was left wondering if there was any briefing on this anywhere in Whitehall. It should be made public to pin down where failure took place. The machinery of Cabinet government appears to have been ignored or run chaotically. The Prime Minister regularly excluded from his councils those who might raise awkward questions. The FCO Legal Advisers were brushed aside when they warned that the invasion was illegal without UN authority. This ' group-think ' mood surfaces among witnesses appearing before the Inquiry. Ministers, diplomats, officials, generals either answer to the best of their ability or adopt a ' not me, gov ' approach. Meetings fade from memories as do the faces of those present and the words spoken. Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence at the time, knew nothing about press reactions to the ' dodgy dossier ' about weapons of mass destruction because ' he was in Kiev ' as though the Internet and telephones in Ukraine only work in one direction. The Prime Minister's press spokesman, a political adviser, chaired meetings of intelligence chiefs but ' did not think the chairman responsible for the work of a committee' - and so it goes on. Tony Blair treated his day giving evidence as a long media conference, simply answered the questions that he would like to have been asked, rather than the ones put, but this simply exposed his ignorance and the casualness of an amateur towards vital detail. The price for the failure of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to do their duty was passed on to young soldiers on the dusty streets of Iraqi cities. I recall telling one of Tony's Ministers back in 1999 that they would prove the most incompetent government in living memory. And that was because they managed to spend a billion pounds on a dome beside the Thames.

We are a lifetime away from the young man who brought the 1996 Labour Party Conference to its feet and whom my friends among the trade union leadership were prepared to support. Tony Blair sneaked into the Inquiry via a side door and a few hours later sneaked out. Sir John Chilcot prompted him not once, but twice. All he had to do was summon up the courage to stand up, turn around, face the waiting relatives of those killed in action. A few respectful words and a humble meeting of their eyes was the right way to end a long day for everyone - he failed, and it will haunt him.

*

BRITISH GENERALS HUSTLED

I repeat what is written elsewhere on this website. David Cameron has a good team on defence - particularly naval matters - but their advice is all too obviously ignored. A symptom of this weakness is the recruitment of Sir Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, as a potential Minister. Well-meaning people often give their trust much too easily and our modern political village is full of drab people trying to bathe themselves in other's limelight. What is the result in this case? A tiresome press campaign by serving and retired Colonel Blimps against the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Rather naively, although not intended, inevitably leaving the impression of fronting this campaign, we find Dannatt's successor, Sir David Richards, reported in the media as implying that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are now mere spectators in modern combat. I wonder how the Afghan campaign would fare during a single day without the fighters, helicopters and transport aircraft not to mention Royal Marine commandos provided by the Senior and Junior Services? Moreover, politicians are a slippery bunch, and by appearing to condone sniping at the other two Services, the generals are falling into another trap. The hard choice in politics will be to tell the British people the real choice facing them - accept international oblivion within the EC or increase the defence budget. Cutting the defence budget is the soft option and our politicians gladly accept the generals' own goal. Already the Government talks about noisy senior officers who should make life easier for Britain's mediocre politicians. The Conservatives obfuscate, waffle. The Queen's three Service Chiefs should stand together and demand a sensible increase in the present annual defence budget.

Sir David Richards talks about a ' tanks for horses ' moment. He's about 45 years behind those of us who served in Vietnam, regretfully in the case of Britain's Army he is right. British generals always find change a struggle.  During the nineteenth century they resisted the abolition of flogging, moreover the great reforms that laid the foundations of Kitchener's citizen army during World War One. For much of the first half of the twentieth century they refused to give up their horses for tanks - to the despair of men like Fuller and Liddell-Hart, not to mention Winston Churchill who encouraged the invention of the tank. As Field Marshal Heinz Guderian remarked, we had the greatest tank strategists in the World though fortunately - for the German Army - no tank generals. For the last 40 years Britain's generals steadfastly refused to relinquish their heavy tanks for helicopters.

Modern airmobile tactics were proven and refined during the Vietnam War. Britain was not involved with the Vietnam War. Consequently the US Army - and the Australians and New Zealanders - spent a decade fighting another way. Vietnam demanded all the military and civilian expertise and sigint resources that Sir Richard suggests are needed in future wars. His words reveal how insular our generals remain today. Vietnam was the watershed for airmobile warfare. The war also showed that a guerrilla campaign could not destroy a democratic government, no matter how weak and corrupt, but could pave the way for a conventional invasion once the victim was thoroughly weakened. American soldiers and Marines learnt all the lesson applied today in Afghanistan. The 173 Airborne provided security for the Binh Dinh local elections in 1970 - against a regular NVA division that was a lot tougher than the Taliban. The same duty was carried out by many other US combat formations the length of South Vietnam. Although the US Army needed a dangerous crisis in Iraq and General David Petraeus to prompt a revival of the political techniques they deployed in Vietnam, the US Navy and USAAF built upon the military skills and lessons learned. Smart bombs were knocking out NVA tanks in spring 1972, long before Desert Storm. Some 40 years ago I remember the US Marines changing the codes between rifle companies every two hours because the Russian eavesdroppers beyond the DMZ in North Vietnam otherwise would crack their messages. That was long after cyber dawn. Perhaps more revealing for our purposes, General Abe Abrams, US Commander in Vietnam, told me that the great thing about the Australian/New Zealand Task Force was that he could stop worrying about the Province they looked after. Contrast his words with Basra and Helmand today.

Colonel John Waddy - serving thirty years ago as the first Colonel Special Forces in the British Army - despaired of the Army leadership over its Cold War tactics and equipment. Little has changed. British generals fought two Gulf Wars with conventional armoured and infantry tactics and now attempt the same in Afghanistan. Demands for better armoured vehicles are the generals' solution, while the grateful enemy simply make more powerful mines. Over the last three years £ 3.5 billions have been spent on Urgent Operational Requirements, purchases of equipment, for Afghanistan. Nearly all that money went on heavier and heavier vehicles rather than grasping the nettle and ordering £ 3.5 billions worth of helicopters and out-flanking the mine layers overnight. The generals allowed the Taliban to keep calling the tactical shots.  The RAF still operate troop carrying helicopters that are regarded as normal for the TO&E of a US brigade. Between June 1940 and May 1943 the defeated and largely unarmed British Army went from not a single paratrooper to raise two airborne divisions with a third forming in India - proving that a completely new form of warfare can go from drawing board to drop zone at astonishing speed given a fair wind. I wonder how much the modern generals request for language training.

 The planners and operations staff took on a role in Afghanistan without accurate intelligence - I suspect almost without any intelligence. Now our small though redoubtable force, taking pointless casualties because it travels by ground, at least has been relieved by the US Marine Corps with many, many helicopters. British generals serving today were involved with the original stupid decision to insert an isolated brigade. Some remain desperate to clear their reputations. Why should our troops risk their lives and limbs for salvaging reputations? If our generals cannot see the wood for the trees, nor it seems, does David Cameron. There is no better example of the speed at which a well managed combined operation should swing into action than the Americans' naval, land and air rescue for Haiti from the earthquake and its own chaos. No power, no water, no government. Without the ships, aircraft, helicopters and ground teams those poor people would rely on penny packets from 40 well meaning countries - who are having great difficulty working together even with powerful American leadership. 

The new Chiefs of the Royal Navy and the RAF assure me that with an extra £ 2.5 billions on the present defence budget all three Services could meet all their operational tasks and purchase all the new ships and aircraft - including helicopters - and land equipment needed for our future safety. At least the Labour Party's defence policy clearly states their intention to build two new aircraft carriers. Their original 1998 plan for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force was a step in the right direction given that we are on the threshold of a series of conflicts between large nations. By that I do not mean world war, rather a period of history similar to the eighteenth century, when conflicts break out between combinations of major states right across the globe for control and ownership of its natural resources. Argentina's latest confrontation over the Falkland Islands provides a good example of what is likely to become the norm for states in financial and political trouble. The 1998 plan left the Navy short of escorts and submarines, the Army without air-portable armour and artillery, the RAF short of strategic airlift but the plan laid solid foundations. The Army's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan threw a huge spanner in the works. That problem should be solved without damaging the other two Services. Otherwise the current Members of Parliament should admit they don't care if 60 million people are left defenceless against the coming storms so long as the electorate brainlessly vote and ensure the gravy train chugs along regardless.

THANK HEAVENS FOR SOME PEOPLE POWER

Frankly, if I, Joe Soap can listen to the Service Chiefs, then so can David Cameron. I would follow their advice; I have no confidence that David Cameron will do the same. Nowhere in the Conservative ' national security plan ' does one find any recognition that our defence and aerospace industries with clean energy are the launching pad for any second industrial revolution. While the notion of a reconstruction force is long overdue and welcome, defeat and myopia rule, because the sparse detail on defence plans implies further weakening of our naval and air power at the very moment when there is still time to increase those strengths before the real storms break. In a paper released before a general election this omission is a blindingly obvious ploy to hoodwink the voters. Perhaps the public are fools, let's hope not. Cameron's team identify many of the growing problems but don't understand them and consequently shun paying the proper insurance premium - my daughter knows more about climate change than his team - put simply, in this new Conservative Party green paper the penny is pushed into the slot, accepted, and then rejected. 

Several weeks ago I wrote on this page that as the general election drew closer David Cameron's team would run into difficulties and find their lead shrinking. I read carefully the views of experienced editors and politicians trying to analyse this phenomenon but, for the moment, few appear to grasp the real cause. David Cameron has remarked that he is Tony Blair's natural successor. He means this. His strategy has been aimed at the swing voters - those people who had never voted for Labour until Tony Blair became leader - believing that if the swing reversed he would become Prime Minister with a massive majority. This strategy required policies that appealed to those swing voters. Policies that do not appeal to the 5-8% of the electorate who turned to fringe parties such as UKIP because their small ' c ' conservatism was no longer welcome in Cameron's version of the Conservative Party. Cameron's team decided to cast them adrift. This was a foolish decision for a party concentrating on marginal seats. The switch of previously loyal voters to UKIP cost the Conservatives over 40 marginal seats in each of the last three ' Tony Blair ' elections - because UKIP relies on disenchanted Conservatives for votes. UKIP voters did not win a single seat in Parliament but had an influence on the overall result out of all proportion to their numbers.

Cameron's team made another fundamental mistake. Every time they announced a future programme, the government pirated their ideas. None-the-less, Cameron's team established in the public mind that the Conservative's had sound imaginative plans, why else would Brown adopt them. As the election drew nearer, Cameron's team stopped revealing their detailed plans. The result is a reversal of public trust. Nobody knows what the Conservatives stand for - even less what they might do as the government. We are left to make up our minds from what they don't say - presently rather a lot - and that evaporates trust.  

People won't vote for slogans. I won't vote for somebody who ignores good advice, perhaps worse, doesn't listen. We really do not need another government of well-meaning children who are ignorant of the real world. Short visits to problem zones are better than none but no substitute for harsh times. While his own experience of personal tragedy has my sympathy and respect, foreign policy and defence are dangerous playgrounds for amateurs, something the Iraq Inquiry reveals week by week. David Cameron is a likeable fellow but no Harold Macmillan - who served in the First World War then during the Second World War became Ike's political adviser in the Mediterranean Theatre and one of Winston Churchill's most trusted political allies. One can only judge from matters one knows something about. My impression - although Labour will further damage the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, David Cameron and his closest allies will wreck them beyond repair. Nor will they put the Foreign and Commonwealth Office back in charge of diplomacy including overseas aid.

I prefer comprehensive insurance to third party only and moreover, even at that low rate, still only insured for parking off the road. I wonder how many other people draw similar conclusions about other big national choices.

This is no way to manage a great country and may not prove the way to win a General election. 

At this stage, were Margaret Thatcher fighting Gordon Brown, she'd lead by 50% in the opinion polls. 

*

The Special Relationship

USS Winston Churchill making an emergency break away from the USS Harry S Truman. She is the only ship in the US Navy permanently assigned a Royal Navy officer - she flies the Stars and Stripes and the White Ensign. Escorting astern of the carrier and her support ship is HMS Manchester. Clicking this photo leads straight to how the Special Relationship began.

*

HMS Daring - photo Royal Navy and BAE

***************

* My opposite number on economics in the US Embassy was Chris Hill, recently appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to Iraq. My wife and Pattie Hill became great friends, indeed Pattie persuaded the American Women's Club to donate generously to a cause Regine sponsored for treating Korean cerebral palsied babies. The Koreans, bless them, could never quite fathom how two diplomats, one in the US Embassy and the other in the British Embassy, shared the same name although they had their suspicions. Aware how the Koreans do business, we hit on the only plausible explanation, and independently told any Korean who asked that I was Chris's uncle. This confirmation always greeted with admiring respect for such a masterful family coup.

President Obama could not have made a better choice. We wish the Hills all good luck.

*

JUST CLICK THE FIGHTER FOR WORLD NEWS ONE - INTELLIGENCE AND DIPLOMACY

WORLD NEWS TWO - BRITAIN'S FORCES NEED MORE IMAGINATION, CASH, PEOPLE, SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND MOBILITY

WORLD NEWS THREE - NAVAL AIR POWER

WORLD NEWS FOUR - DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES

WORLD NEWS FIVE - REFORM OF THE BRITISH ARMY

WORLD NEWS SIX - CHINA AND KOREA

*******

OUR NORMANDY D DAY AIR & LAND TOURS

Anyone taking our Normandy sky tour finds it helpful to have an idea of the scale of Operation Overlord and our briefing pages are worth a glance to understand some of the events before America's entry into the Second World War. Many visitors to our website probably know much of what is explained on these pages. Please grant us your forbearance. We try to ensure that those less familiar with the background to D Day, particularly the young, start their tour with a sound conception of what was at stake thereby making their time with us all the more worthwhile and enjoyable.

OUR VIRTUAL D DAY TOUR HAS LOTS OF PHOTOS OF THE LEGENDARY SITES TODAY

SEE ALSO

                     OUR SKY GUIDES          STOP PRESS          OUR TOURS PAGE